News4 mins ago
Voting For 16 And 17 Year Olds !
http://
How do we all stand on allowing 16 and 17 year olds to vote in Elections ?
I personally think that we should try it. In my lifetime you used to have to be 21, but that was changed to 18 in 1969. So perhaps we are overdue a change.
How do we all stand on allowing 16 and 17 year olds to vote in Elections ?
I personally think that we should try it. In my lifetime you used to have to be 21, but that was changed to 18 in 1969. So perhaps we are overdue a change.
Answers
I think most 16 year olds are perfectly capable of grasping the concepts which would enable them to vote with integrity, so I would be for it. There are clearly those who wouldn't be up to fully understandin
10:19 Wed 24th Sep 2014
I said a few days ago, in another AnswerBank thread on the Scottish referendum, that if the "other election" - meaning the one due next May - came up with the 'right' result, we could all expect to see the lowering of the voting age in UK elections to be policy. So it seems to have transpired.
Of course, some 16/17-year-olds have no interest in politics, but there are multitudes of others who do, as evidenced in Scotland. Given the other facts applicable to reaching 16, it seems odd to deprive the latter of an opportunity to participate in matters which affect them.
Of course, some 16/17-year-olds have no interest in politics, but there are multitudes of others who do, as evidenced in Scotland. Given the other facts applicable to reaching 16, it seems odd to deprive the latter of an opportunity to participate in matters which affect them.
Those on the left always want this as most childern, having had years of left wing doctrine from teachers, are unsurprisingly lefty.
After a few years of paying tax under a labour Government, many soon start to realize the folly of their ways.
So I am not surprised you are keen on it.
The reason you had to be 21 is that is shte age of consent, an adult which is now 18. As far as I am aware that has not changed nor is it likely to change.
After a few years of paying tax under a labour Government, many soon start to realize the folly of their ways.
So I am not surprised you are keen on it.
The reason you had to be 21 is that is shte age of consent, an adult which is now 18. As far as I am aware that has not changed nor is it likely to change.
Your posts are irrelevant to the main thread. This isn't a party political issue and I am not sure why you have used this opportunity to make cheap political points.
For the record, it appears that Labour, the SNP and the LibDems are all agreeing to consider making the change and the Tories have yet to express a public opinion on this. Room for a reasoned debate, not cheap party politics.
For the record, it appears that Labour, the SNP and the LibDems are all agreeing to consider making the change and the Tories have yet to express a public opinion on this. Room for a reasoned debate, not cheap party politics.
I think allowing children to vote in a country's affairs is a gimmick and can not seriously be considered by any reasonable person. If one does not stop at a sensible age then what next ? 14, then 10 then 5 then 1 ? For goodness sake, the more I hear of decisions made by authority the more I think the inmates have long been in charge of the asylum.
-- answer removed --
As I pointed out on yet another thread recently, YMB, this very matter was debated at Westminster in 2010. Then, roughly four out of every ten votes among all UK MPs were in favour. Now that these MPs have seen it actually functioning on a national level, that number may very well rise.
Are you under the impression that ALL teachers are left-wing? It wouldn't surprise me if you did, given that you 'know' all left-wingers are anti-British! If one absurd idea can thrive in your head, I can see no reason why others might not. Rather like the Queen in Through the Looking Glass, I'm sure you could claim to "believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Are you under the impression that ALL teachers are left-wing? It wouldn't surprise me if you did, given that you 'know' all left-wingers are anti-British! If one absurd idea can thrive in your head, I can see no reason why others might not. Rather like the Queen in Through the Looking Glass, I'm sure you could claim to "believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
But then by extension brightspark, should someone who pays 40% tax have a higher weighting for their vote than someone on minimum wage?
The recent referendum showed that 16- and 17-year-olds can indeed be engaged in politics. Whether they will stay that way in general elections is another matter, but right now, one of the things we could do with is more engagement in politics across the electorate. Perhaps extending voting rights down to 16-year-olds will end up helping that?
The recent referendum showed that 16- and 17-year-olds can indeed be engaged in politics. Whether they will stay that way in general elections is another matter, but right now, one of the things we could do with is more engagement in politics across the electorate. Perhaps extending voting rights down to 16-year-olds will end up helping that?
Be that as it may, denying voting rights to people because they don't vote the way you want is not a legitimate reason for denying voting rights. If 16-year-olds should not be allowed to vote it's not because they will vote overall for a left-wing party. One could equally well go the other way: the older you are the more cynical you get about politics, so you aren't really voting in an unbiased and objective way...
In the past I've been against the concept of 16-year-olds being able to vote but I'm not sure this is right any more. As long as we have a voluntary voting system then there's little danger of the not so politically-aware youths influencing the result -- almost by definition, those are the youngsters who aren't going to turn up and vote anyway. And it's not like everyone aged 18 and older is politically aware either.
In the past I've been against the concept of 16-year-olds being able to vote but I'm not sure this is right any more. As long as we have a voluntary voting system then there's little danger of the not so politically-aware youths influencing the result -- almost by definition, those are the youngsters who aren't going to turn up and vote anyway. And it's not like everyone aged 18 and older is politically aware either.
If awareness was a criteria it'd be difficult to know what age everyone had become aware. What is needed is to be of an age when a large majority are able to consider the consequences of their vote; and 18 is questionable but accepted, lower makes no sense to me, regardless as to whether there are particularly politically astute individuals of that age. Their time will come.
If one is not interested in the election it doesn't mean one won't vote. Under parental pressure one can be encouraged to help them elect the candidate they think best. And for sure whilst any group may find difficulty swaying the end result, that ought not be a reason not to have sensible criteria for eligibility.
Parties vote for this sort of change in the hope the young folk will feel grateful and vote for them. But even if it occurs it's a one off unfair advantage. (A bit like the idea of knock down price, publically owned housing, sold to those who have had the advantage of paying a less than market rent for years in one.) Or because they hold a dodgy, everyone should be allowed freedom to do most anything, type of ideology.
If one is not interested in the election it doesn't mean one won't vote. Under parental pressure one can be encouraged to help them elect the candidate they think best. And for sure whilst any group may find difficulty swaying the end result, that ought not be a reason not to have sensible criteria for eligibility.
Parties vote for this sort of change in the hope the young folk will feel grateful and vote for them. But even if it occurs it's a one off unfair advantage. (A bit like the idea of knock down price, publically owned housing, sold to those who have had the advantage of paying a less than market rent for years in one.) Or because they hold a dodgy, everyone should be allowed freedom to do most anything, type of ideology.
mikey4444
/// Your posts are irrelevant to the main thread. This isn't a party political issue and I am not sure why you have used this opportunity to make cheap political points. ///
Of course it is a party political issue, why else would you bring it up.
This was debated on LBC radio phone-in last night and the very much left wing presenter was also for 16 to 17 year olds voting, and anyone who was against it was soon criticised and ridiculed by left wing callers and the presenter himself.
/// Your posts are irrelevant to the main thread. This isn't a party political issue and I am not sure why you have used this opportunity to make cheap political points. ///
Of course it is a party political issue, why else would you bring it up.
This was debated on LBC radio phone-in last night and the very much left wing presenter was also for 16 to 17 year olds voting, and anyone who was against it was soon criticised and ridiculed by left wing callers and the presenter himself.
